If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Fiscal Cliff: A GOP Doomsday Plan

Republicans are seriously considering a Doomsday Plan if fiscal cliff talks collapse entirely. It's quite simple: House Republicans would allow a vote on extending the Bush middle class tax cuts (the bill passed in August by the Senate) and offer the President nothing more: no extension of the debt ceiling, nothing on unemployment, nothing on closing loopholes. Congress would recess for the holidays and the president would face a big battle early in the year over the debt ceiling.

By doing this, Republicans avoid taking blame for tax increases on 98 percent of income tax payers. As one senior Republican in Congress told me, "You don't take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot." Republicans aren't willing to kill the middle class tax cuts, even if extending them alone will make it harder to later extend tax cuts on the wealthy.

Still unclear under this plan is what would happen to the automatic defense cuts - " sequestration" - scheduled to go into effect on January 1 without a deficit deal.

That will never happen.
The threat of default is more concerning to the finanacially elite then to average americans at this point.
the continued squeezing of middle class resources, has hardened the middle class,which cant get a loan, or do much of anything else for the last three years.
allowing our rating to tank would for the first time in a long time bruise the wealthy ,more then the poor.
The Rs are going to agree to the 98% tax cuts, and then they will negotiate for the rest of the spending cuts without playing games.

"Still unclear under this plan is what would happen to the automatic defense cuts - " sequestration" - scheduled to go into effect on January 1 without a deficit deal."

So for all the Republicans support for the military they would allow it to face drastic, possibly crippling cuts so they can score political points?

Exactly the republicans have no negotiation power here. Unemployment extension ? Really? They've fought that all along. They will give up on the tax increases, because they have no choice. They will give up much more to avoid the defense cuts. They won't like how this will turn out. They should have accepted what they were offered last year, instead of betting on a republican victory in the presidential election. Now they will get a deal like even less. Elections have consequences, especially when you punt the year before thinking u will when down the road

"Still unclear under this plan is what would happen to the automatic defense cuts - " sequestration" - scheduled to go into effect on January 1 without a deficit deal."

So for all the Republicans support for the military they would allow it to face drastic, possibly crippling cuts so they can score political points?

Obama himself said during the debates that they would not happen. They will pull some procedural move and put them off for a year or whatever.

French writer Alexis de Tocqueville warned about when visiting this fledgling democracy in the early 19th century – that this "American republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

Exactly the republicans have no negotiation power here. Unemployment extension ? Really? They've fought that all along. They will give up on the tax increases, because they have no choice. They will give up much more to avoid the defense cuts. They won't like how this will turn out. They should have accepted what they were offered last year, instead of betting on a republican victory in the presidential election. Now they will get a deal like even less. Elections have consequences, especially when you punt the year before thinking u will when down the road

I wouldn't say this is necessarily true being they still hold the House. Without getting something on their end they don't have to accept anything the president or Senate offer. If they pull this option it will leave it up to the President to figure out how to avoid the sequestration as I said in the post above he has already gone on record in the debates stating they will not happen.

French writer Alexis de Tocqueville warned about when visiting this fledgling democracy in the early 19th century – that this "American republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

I wouldn't say this is necessarily true being they still hold the House. Without getting something on their end they don't have to accept anything the president or Senate offer. If they pull this option it will leave it up to the President to figure out how to avoid the sequestration as I said in the post above he has already gone on record in the debates stating they will not happen.

They don't have to accept anything, you are correct. That however would be electoral suicide. The democrats will wait for the senate bill to pass the house, just watch. If republicans refuse, the ramifications of protecting the tax cuts for the top 2% will be severe. The tax break extension for 98% of Americans is their for the passing. If they hold out to protect the wealthy, they will pay a big price. As we saw in this past election, there are not enough wealthy voters in the country to impact elections. The clock is ticking, republicans can hold out if they want, but there will be no deal until the democrats proposed tax rates are passed. There is zero reason for the democrats to give an inch on tax rates.

They don't have to accept anything, you are correct. That however would be electoral suicide. The democrats will wait for the senate bill to pass the house, just watch. If republicans refuse, the ramifications of protecting the tax cuts for the top 2% will be severe. The tax break extension for 98% of Americans is their for the passing. If they hold out to protect the wealthy, they will pay a big price. As we saw in this past election, there are not enough wealthy voters in the country to impact elections. The clock is ticking, republicans can hold out if they want, but there will be no deal until the democrats proposed tax rates are passed. There is zero reason for the democrats to give an inch on tax rates.

You entirely missed the initial post it seems with what you posted above.

Republicans are seriously considering a Doomsday Plan if fiscal cliff talks collapse entirely. It's quite simple: House Republicans would allow a vote on extending the Bush middle class tax cuts (the bill passed in August by the Senate) and offer the President nothing more: no extension of the debt ceiling, nothing on unemployment, nothing on closing loopholes. Congress would recess for the holidays and the president would face a big battle early in the year over the debt ceiling.

According to this they would go along with just the middle class tax cuts and nothing more. Leaving a huge fight after the holidays over pretty much everything else that needs to be voted on like the debt ceiling. Also puts the ball in Obama's court on the sequestration measures. He is on record in the debates stating that they would not happen.

French writer Alexis de Tocqueville warned about when visiting this fledgling democracy in the early 19th century – that this "American republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

Whether you're a Democrat or Republican, the argument that government is "too big" usually only applies to when it does something you don't like

You have to hand it to the True Libertarians (as opposed to the social conservatives who call themselves Libertarians) that they really and truly do want a smaller government in all ways. I don't agree with them, but I respect their consistent position.

Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

Sequestration is a clumsy and damaging way of going about government budget reform. Kind of like using dynamite to cut trees for firewood. Id rather see actual thought go into the process.

Problem with this is you would need politicians on both sides to act like adults not spoiled children to get such a thing done.

French writer Alexis de Tocqueville warned about when visiting this fledgling democracy in the early 19th century – that this "American republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

Problem with this is you would need politicians on both sides to act like adults not spoiled children to get such a thing done.

Your state held a Republican primary, where an adult, with a track record of being an adult, particularly in defense and international affairs, was voted out in favor a Tea Party favorite, who lost. I guess I should say thank you, but what I really feel is that the Senate is a little smaller (at least in the short run, time will tell in the long run) and a person who one could count on is no longer there.

I don't know what the moral to the story is.

Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?